Video: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

[Bounty]

The fact that fans might become emotionally involved with their franchise, and thus think the ship that was at the heart of it, probably as much as the characters that where the NOMINAL stars of the franchise, is probably incomprehensible to you.

This is complete nonsense. No story element should get immunity from plot just because a few fans are "emotionally invested" (and what does that even mean?). This reasoning is the source of probably 80% of all bad EU fiction ever. A proper writer looks at the Enterprise, see an icon, and asks himself "how can we use this imagery to tell the story", not "how can we write a scene where the ship is totally awesome and escapes in the nick of time just so the fans can cheer".

[Skylon]

I don't see how the destruction of the Enterprise was at all disappointing. It was going to be decommissioned anyway because of the damage it took in the previous movie. The movie shows us what Kirk was prepared to sacrifice for a friend - he loses his son, he loses his ship, and he broke Federation law to get to Genesis so he loses his career - and Sarek at the end comments on this. Kirk's reply was that he if didn't go to Genesis, he would have lost his soul. You can't show sacrifice without... um, sacrificing things. The only problem is that there are absolutely no repercussions arising out of the events in this film, but you can't blame ST3 for ST4's failure to do so, and for hitting the reset button (ST4, in contrast to ST3, is the big disappointment, and is a film that I think gets overappreciated just because it has some funny jokes).

I can't take 100% credit for this, as I think its from Mike Okuda's text commentary of the film, but Kirk's sacrifice of the Enterprise, in spite of the thread in ST 1 and 2, of him willing to do anything to get the ship back, shows he has moved past that. The lives of Spock and his crew are more important to him than his ship, which has been the object of his desire since TOS.

It also always seemed that, had Enterprise not been running on a less-than skeleton crew, and a jury rigged automation system, the ship would have held together, blasted Kruge's BoP to hell, picked up Spock and warped to Vulcan. I don't see that as showing the Admiral was right to retire the ship.

The main missed opportunity, I'd agree was the lack of any kind of "Search". I also like the idea of putting Kirk through a hell, similar to Khan (Genesis is Ceti Alpha 5 in this case), and showing him emerge the better man.

[Themightytom]

I don't understand the downer on the Enterprise's destruction. A bunch of old idiots stole a broken-ass ship they could barely control and due to enemy action it was destroyed. They didn't just lose the ship; they pretty much destroyed it themselves.

GREAT PLAN GUYS.

That really wasn't well depicted in the movie, there really didn't seem to BE a plan. The only reason i could see for stealing the Enterprise was immediate conveience, they knew how to operate it, knew the security codes, and knew it was available. on the other hand it was a still armed constitution class starship, they HAD to know that would generate some attention and SERIOUS repercussions. I feel like stealing a bunch of torpedoes would be a big deal, they stole the whole ship! The only reason they got away with itt was because of Starfleets "one ship per sector" deployment policy, they knock outt the Excelsior and Starfleet has nothing in the area.

It wasn't depicted in the movie, but I have to assume the reason they took the Enterprise was because grabbing that conveniently deserted ship provided easy access to a ship that would be difficult to trump. If they had made off with Spock's warp shuttle from TMP, the federation could have responded with a vessel of similiar size, which there may have been more of. Stealing the Enterprise meant the Federation only had one or two ships ccapable of inttercept, and they might have been more valuable where they were than chasing one undercrewed already damaged starship. i'm defending the movie though because none off tthis was explained leading the audience to come down off the initial high of "OMG They Stole The Enterprise" to " wait...why did they do that

[Ryushikaze]

The fact that fans might become emotionally involved with their franchise, and thus think the ship that was at the heart of it, probably as much as the characters that where the NOMINAL stars of the franchise, is probably incomprehensible to you.

This is complete nonsense. No story element should get immunity from plot just because a few fans are "emotionally invested" (and what does that even mean?). This reasoning is the source of probably 80% of all bad EU fiction ever. A proper writer looks at the Enterprise, see an icon, and asks himself "how can we use this imagery to tell the story", not "how can we write a scene where the ship is totally awesome and escapes in the nick of time just so the fans can cheer".

It shouldn't be immune from the plot, yes, but as you said, it should be used to further the story, and the lackluster send off the enterprise got didn't really further the story in this instance. It, like a lot of other things in STIII, just sort of happens without particular impact, which is why the movie is rather meh in its execution.
To sink the ship 'at the heart of the franchise' and which the main character has had an emotional connection to, especially in the last two films, is totally valid in furtherance of the plot, but make sure that it has an impact for the audience too.

[Serafina]

Pissing off the fanwhores to show how serious the situation is? That's ok.
Not realising that Kirk had a running theme how he was bound to that ship - well, thats a failure, no matter how you spin it.

[Bounty]

Not realising that Kirk had a running theme how he was bound to that ship - well, thats a failure, no matter how you spin it.

Kirk was never bound to the ship, he was bound to command - the Enterprise was dear to him, but in the end it was mainly a symbol of duty and purpose to him. As Bones points out when she's burning up in the atmosphere, Kirk was able to sacrifice her because it's what he does: he takes dead-end situations and finds a way out; even if it means paying an exorbitant cost. Which, neatly, is also the theme of STIII.

[DaveJB]

It's also a continuation of the "No Win Scenario" theme from the previous movie. After the Enterprise's automation system was destroyed, Kirk knew that his available options were very limited - if they just abandoned the Enterprise or attempted to mount a defence on the ship and failed, Kruge would have gotten hold of the ship and, much more seriously, he would have been able to plunder a wealth of Federation knowledge from her databanks (as he announced his intention to do just before sending the boarding party aboard).

There was no way Kirk could have pulled out anything remotely near a win from the situation, but the one he took was the "best loss" available to him - the Enterprise dies, but in doing so it denies Kruge the opportunity to use it for his own ends, and also blasts several of his crewmembers into atoms.

[Themightytom]

There was no way Kirk could have pulled out anything remotely near a win from the situation, but the one he took was the "best loss" available to him - the Enterprise dies, but in doing so it denies Kruge the opportunity to use it for his own ends, and also blasts several of his crewmembers into atoms.

I don't know if there's NO way he could have done that switch places thing aimed at the Klingon ship instead of the planet, and left a grenade in the transporter room. Enterprise is down one transporter room but since Kirk just commandeered a Klingon ship with a transporter, its an even swap.

[Serafina]

There was no way Kirk could have pulled out anything remotely near a win from the situation, but the one he took was the "best loss" available to him - the Enterprise dies, but in doing so it denies Kruge the opportunity to use it for his own ends, and also blasts several of his crewmembers into atoms.

I don't know if there's NO way he could have done that switch places thing aimed at the Klingon ship instead of the planet, and left a grenade in the transporter room. Enterprise is down one transporter room but since Kirk just commandeered a Klingon ship with a transporter, its an even swap.

Ah, the god, old-fashioned solutions.
Reminds me of Janeway and the Caretaker Array:
"There is no other way out! - except a bit of ancient technology, but that would dissapoint the audience."

Of course, Kirks decision is way more understandable than Janeways, he had less time and propably not the right equipment at hand etc.

[Themightytom]

There was no way Kirk could have pulled out anything remotely near a win from the situation, but the one he took was the "best loss" available to him - the Enterprise dies, but in doing so it denies Kruge the opportunity to use it for his own ends, and also blasts several of his crewmembers into atoms.

I don't know if there's NO way he could have done that switch places thing aimed at the Klingon ship instead of the planet, and left a grenade in the transporter room. Enterprise is down one transporter room but since Kirk just commandeered a Klingon ship with a transporter, its an even swap.

Ah, the god, old-fashioned solutions.
Reminds me of Janeway and the Caretaker Array:
"There is no other way out! - except a bit of ancient technology, but that would dissapoint the audience."

Of course, Kirks decision is way more understandable than Janeways, he had less time and propably not the right equipment at hand etc.

What was the reference to "ancient technology?" were you going for a double word score with mockery of Voyager AND stargate? I mean I applaud the attempt but I'm not sure I understand it...

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

He means a timer.

[Steve]

An awesome review as always, Chuck. A couple thoughts I'd like to bring up.

1) The Enterprise blows up primarily in the saucer, while the drive half with all the fuel and the reactor plant are intact. If you think about it, it makes some sense. Enterprise wasn't destroyed by a torpedo or phaser blast to the magazine or fuel bunkers like, say, Arizona at Pearl Harbor or the British battlecruisers at Jutland; she was "scuttled". Since it's space, though, there are no scuttling locks or sea doors to open to permit non-existent seawater to fill a ship and bring her down, instead there are special explosive charges at critical points to accomplish the same goal; to deny the enemy a chance to capture a crippled vessel and to seize any information from her.

However, if you're "scuttling" a starship, what are you trying to destroy primarily? The engines and fuel? The weapons? Or perhaps the ship's computer systems, the actual hard disk space where data is stored. If you look at it that way, and presume that the computer systems are primarily in the saucer (since the drive hull probably needs all that space for the engine machinery and related systems), the saucer blowing up with the self-destruct makes perfect sense.

Not that the drive shouldn't have blown up too. Might be that the scuttling charges malfunctioned in the drive due to the battle damage, or the jury-rigging Scotty did or what have you, but again the priority in scuttling would be the computers.

(Yes, I'm being geeky and over-analytical, dammit, I deserve it! )

2) The Vulcans' rather garish, overdone routine at the end. The Vulcans have seemed to craft their entire society around the repression of emotion and an emphasis on rationality, on "logic". It stands to reason that they help reinforce this through the provision of ritual and tradition. Ritual especially can be done in a way that requires discipline of mind and body (like those priestesses holding up their arms for no apparent reason) and would help the practitioner learn and maintain the control expected of them. As for carrying the Vulcan high priestess - T'Pau wasn't it? - on a throne litter, well, that also plays into ritual showing a sense of awe and reverence for those who have attained high rank, all part of tradition.

[Gramzamber]

Star Trek III cemented in my mind the notion that the Vulcans merely worship the concept of logic, and don't practice it nearly as much as they profess to.

[Steve]

A pretty reasonable point, and having just watched Trek VI tonight, I can bring up the Spock quote to Vulcan-Girl-Who-Is-Not-Saavik: "Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end."

Said, of course, from an older, experienced Vulcan to a young one raised in a culture that does, indeed, worship logic, which considers the repression of emotion and embrace of imposing logical thought on all things a vital part of its identity.